quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

11A is right by the exit door, how in the heck do you get your seat belt off, get up and open that door and jump out that quickly...

That's an amazing story. Some people are capable of reacting very quickly under incredible stress.

There is no way that happened as written. Those doors are pressurized closed, even with engines failed there is enough PSI to keep it closed, there is usually a cover over the operating handle, then a very large handle that must be rotated a long way to open the door, then it swings in first to clear the frame, rotate and then pushes out, and it's heavy.

Further up the Page trapper189 mentions what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
He involuntarily deboarded the plane as it slowed down:

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Another medic said Ramesh told him that immediately after the plane took off, it began descending and suddenly split into two, throwing him out followed by a loud explosion.

According to the medic, Ramesh said he found himself next to debris and walked to a nearby ambulance that brought him to the hospital.

The crash’s sole survivor escaped without life-threatening injuries

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A doctor at a nearby hospital said he examined the survivor, Vishwashkumar Ramesh, who reportedly walked away after the crash.

“He was disoriented with multiple injuries all over his body,” Dr. Dhaval Gameti told The Associated Press. “But he seems to be out of danger.”

Ramesh called his relatives in Leicester, according to the BBC. He has a wife and “little boy” at home, said his cousin Ajay Valgi.

The survivor’s brother Nayan Kumar Ramesh told the BBC: “He said, ‘I have no idea how I exited the plane.’”

Link

Yeah, that makes more sense.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
This article says "Reports reveal Ramesh was seated in 11A — an emergency exit row." He was NOT seated in an emergency exit row (usually located over a wing). On the contrary, he was seated right next to a cabin door - THE DOOR primarily used to embark and debark passengers. The cabin door forward of this one and in front of row one is only used if the terminal has two jetways available and is generally for business-class passengers.

The 787 has no wing exits. All of the exits are used in an emergency and I’d put money on the guy being given the spiel about being willing and able to help people out in case of an emergency. That’s enough for me to call it an emergency exit row.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
[ Specifically, the RAT will deploy automatically if both engines fail or if all three hydraulic systems experience low pressure.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm not an expert on the 787, just on the one I use. The problem with that AI answer and speculation is specifics. They say engine failure...well what does that mean? Does it count low fan speed? does it count low EPR? does it go by fuel flow? There are 10's of ways for an engine to 'fail' that might not necessarily trigger the RAT. The ram air turbines sole job is to use airflow to provide electricity. SO what it is looking for is electric. If the engines were not set to the correct power, they could be "failed" according to AI, but still producing electricity.
Locked up engines are failed, engines that have run out of fuel are failed, but engines that have run out of fuel are still turning, 'Windmilling' in the air stream. If the engine is still turning with the airflow, the hydraulic pumps will still be turning and thus producing pressure.
The problem with AI is that it is summarizing, and we need specifics. Without specifics, everything is just speculation. Did the engines fail, what cause them to fail, were they still turning, was the APU still on, a running apu will provide electrics and negate the need for an auto deploy of the RAT. We need to know Boeing's systems logic on when the rat deploys automatically and when it is pilot deployed.
I'm not sure of anything at this point, but it seems unlikely in that short time span for an auto-deploy, but I could be wrong. I will be looking forward to the report.

I think the RAT is a red herring given the video. They appear to have used the entire runway for takeoff, suggesting perhaps a thrust problem. But it appears that both engines are producing thrust in the liftoff and early climb. They had enough energy to climb briefly, so they had excess thrust allowing them to "unstick" from the ground and climb a few hundred feet. The pitch angle is pretty stable, with one short period after the sink set in where the pitch may have been increased a few degrees but then was reduced back to the initial climb pitch.

The initial pitch does not look radically too high.

The gear staying down suggests the crew was distracted from the SOP script. The script is like saying your ABC's. PF = pilot flying, PNF = pilot not flying: PF,"Set Thrust". PNF,"Thrust Set". PNF,"80 Knots". PF,"Check". PNF,"V1". PNF,"Rotate". PNF,"V2". PNF,"Positive Rate". PF,"Gear Up". PF,"Autopilot ON". PNF,"Autopilot". PF,"Flaps (5, up, etc)".

Each aircraft and airline will have some version pretty close to that. It is so routine that it is difficult to miss getting the gear up. It does happen, and then you see the YT video of the aircraft flying for a while with gear down because they are on to later parts of The Script.

In this accident, it would surprise me if the crew unintentionally forgot to get the gear up and then there was also an unrelated problem that brought the aircraft down. I expect the gear staying down means they were attending to some surprise.

An image of the port wing - separated from the fuselage, has just been shown on TV here in UK. It clearly shows a measurable degree of down-flap.

However, might that have been caused by lack of hydraulic power in the system after the wing broke off?

The 'black' boxes are going to be vital.

Damn, it's like it wasn't making full power at all.
You can take off without flaps as long as you have enough airspeed.
Looks like he pulled the nose up to climb and didn't have enough airspeed.
I bet the alarms were screaming as soon as he hauled back on the wheel.
Wonder what the density altitude was.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
Damn, it's like it wasn't making full power at all.
You can take off without flaps as long as you have enough airspeed.
Looks like he pulled the nose up to climb and didn't have enough airspeed.
I bet the alarms were screaming as soon as he hauled back on the wheel.
Wonder what the density altitude was.

I saw it was 39C at the time. Ahmedabad Airport is essentially at sea level (189 feet above MSL).

I’m guessing it was hot air, dense with humidity.

It seemed like he started to climb after liftoff, though not as fast as most airliners I've seen take off lately, and then lost all his lift. Takeoff is when the plane would be heaviest (full load of fuel) and most vulnerable to a stall (low speed). It's like when they got high enough to get out of ground effect, the plane just suddenly didn't want to fly anymore. Something else would have to exacerbate the condition though, like low engine thrust or not enough flaps. Like someone else already said, the black boxes will tell the tale.

Yes, report is that the Captain was declaring mayday and losing power in both engines… You don’t have power, nothing you do at the moment matters, game over.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...econd-black-box.html

“Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who had 8,200 hours of flying experience, desperately cried 'Mayday…no thrust, losing power, unable to lift' before the aircraft went down and hit a residential property.“

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:

You can take off without flaps as long as you have enough airspeed.

I find that claim to be extremely dubious with a fully loaded 787.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
You can take off without flaps as long as you have enough airspeed.

I find that claim to be extremely dubious with a fully loaded 787.

I believe SC is making a generalized aviation comment, not specific to this situation.

quote:

I’m guessing it was hot air, dense with humidity.

Well, that's not good.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:

You can take off without flaps as long as you have enough airspeed.

I find that claim to be extremely dubious with a fully loaded 787.

This is 100 percent true, airspeed makes planes fly. The PROBLEM is that without flaps you will need 5 or 6 miles of runway to accomplish this fact, this runway was probably 3 miles long. They ran out of runway before achieving enough speed. Flaps allow you to fly at a slower speed, thus using less runway.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:

This is 100 percent true, airspeed makes planes fly. The PROBLEM is that without flaps you will need 5 or 6 miles of runway to accomplish this fact, this runway was probably 3 miles long. They ran out of runway before achieving enough speed. Flaps allow you to fly at a slower speed, thus using less runway.

Well that was my point. We're talking about the real world here. These jets are not taking off and maintaining flight without those flaps. But I understand SC's point now.

In any case, it appears during the Mayday call, the Captain said that they were losing power and had no thrust, so the flaps may not have been the issue here.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


In any case, it appears during the Mayday call, the Captain said that they were losing power and had no thrust, so the flaps may not have been the issue here.

Yeah, more info is needed right now, at first glance they ran out of lift. You can get that from thrust(speed) or flaps. They settled nice and gentle as you would expect from loss of thrust. There are so many automatic warnings to prevent the crew from missing the flaps, so I don't think that was the problem.
I'm betting my money on the loss of thrust problem, where that came from no idea yet. Fuel problems, birds, Engine control problems(FADEC computer), someone pulling the power back.

The flaps were not down but the wheels were so it looks a lot like not enough power for the hydraulics. One video on youtube claims that the RAT was deployed.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
this runway was probably 3 miles long.

3500m = 2.15 miles.

Does the 787 have an automatic thrust increase to TOGA if the angle of attack approaches stall? Airbus has such a system iirc. The 787 engines should spool up quickly to TOGA or even max rpm from a reduced TO thrust. Yet they seemed to be losing thrust the entire time airborne.

I’m curious how much runway length played. Unless they back taxied, the departure intersection for runway 23 was only 1.15ish miles.

quote:

Originally posted by Phantom229:
I’m curious how much runway length played. Unless they back taxied, the departure intersection for runway 23 was only 1.15ish miles.

It's a moot point, they didn't crash off the end of the runway. They got airborne and were flying, and then for some reason lost their lift. They had adequate thrust until just after liftoff.